Nomenclature of Zoology. 3 
that most of them are, or affect to be, as ignorant of what their 
neighbors the English are doing in science, as though sucha 
people did not exist. Very seldom do we find a French writer 
referring to English books, splendid and accessible as they are, 
though honorable exceptions might be named. We have been 
sometimes disposed to think that the distinguished professors in 
Paris, being placed at the head of the magnificent collections and 
institutions of the French capital, had come to think that noth- 
ing in science could be known, which they did not know; that 
it would therefore be superfluous for them to spend time in cull- 
ing over the works of others; and finally, that whatever pre- 
sented itself as new to them, must be actually new, of course. 
It was suggested a year or two since, that a paper should be 
drawn up and signed by the principal zoologists in America, re- 
questing the British Association to take the subject of the laws 
of nomenclature into consideration, and propose a series of rules 
for general use. It was thought that rules emanating from such 
a source, ‘would be invested with an authority which no indi- 
vidual zoologist, however eminent, could confer on them,” sufii- 
cient indeed to ensure their observance. ‘The Association has 
anticipated our wishes, and has proposed a series of rules cover- 
ing the whole ground of difficulty, just and honorable in their 
character, and with which no original naturalist author will find 
much reason to complain. They are drawn up in so concise a 
style, that we believe a republication of them, in this connection, 
will be judicious. They ought to be at once disseminated 
throughout the scientific public, to be duly reflected upon, and 
modifications suggested, before the code is finally enacted ; for 
the committee, in the caption of their report, invoke us 
—‘* si quid novisti rectius istis, 
Candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum.” 
The subject is divided into two parts; the first, of rudes for 
the rectification of the present nomenclature, and the second for 
ats improvement in future. The law of priority is laid down as 
the only effectual and just one, as a basis of procedure, and gives 
rise to the first and fundamental maxim: 
1. The name given by the founder of a group, or the describer of a 
species, should be permanently retained, to the exclusion of all subse- 
quent synonyms, (with the exceptions about to be noticed.) 
